DEVELOPMENT OF A MODEL TO CALCULATE MECHANICAL SPECIFIC

ENERGY FOR AIR HAMMER DRILLING SYSTEMS

A Thesis

by

BOMA JEREMIAH OKUCHABA

Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of

Texas A&M University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

May 2008

Major Subject: Petroleum Engineering

DEVELOPMENT OF A MODEL TO CALCULATE MECHANICAL SPECIFIC

ENERGY FOR AIR HAMMER DRILLING SYSTEMS

A Thesis

by

BOMA JEREMIAH OKUCHABA

Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of

Texas A&M University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Approved by:

Chair of Committee, Jerome J. Schubert

Committee Members, Hans C. Juvkam-Wold
Steve Suh
Head of Department, Steve Holditch

May 2008

Major Subject: Petroleum Engineering

 iii

ABSTRACT

Development of a Model to Calculate Mechanical Specific Energy for Air Hammer

Drilling Systems. (May 2008)
Boma Jeremiah Okuchaba, B.Tech, River State University of Science and Technology,
Nigeria
Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. Jerome J. Schubert

Drilling for hydrocarbons is an expensive operation; consequently operators try to save

costs by reducing the number of days spent during this operation. Drilling efficiently
with the highest attainable rate of penetration is one of the ways drilling time could be
reduced. Real-time monitoring of Mechanical Specific Energy will enable drilling
engineers to detect when the optimum drilling rate for a given set of drilling parameters
is not being achieved.

Numerous works have been done on air hammers and rock Mechanical Specific Energy.
Previous research has shown that Mechanical Specific Energy, which is a ratio that
quantifies the input energy and Rate of Penetration (ROP) of a drilling system, is directly
proportional to the rock compressive strength being drilled. The Mechanical Specific
Energy model utilizes drilling parameters such as ROP, Weight on bit (WOB), RPM,
torque, flow-rate, bottom-hole pressure, and bottom-hole temperature to show how
effectively energy being put into the drill string is being converted to ROP at the bit.

This research effort proposes a new model to calculate the Mechanical Specific Energy
for air hammer drilling systems. A thermodynamic model for the air hammer from
which the piston impact velocity and kinetic energy is obtained is presented. To be able
to estimate the effective energy delivered to the rock by the hammer, the stress wave
propagation model is used and factored into the Mechanical Specific Energy model.
 iv

The Mechanical Specific Energy values obtained from the application of this model
provide a qualitative indicator of formation pressure changes and a means for drilling
engineers to detect when optimum drilling rate is not being achieved. It can be deduced
from the model that the impact energy of the hammer is greatly affected by the pressure
drop across the hammer and since the hammer accounts for about sixty percent of the
energy required for destroying the rock, the ROP can be varied by varying the pressure
drop across the hammer.
 v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge those who inspired and helped me through the entire
duration of this research.

I would like to express my sincere and profound gratitude to Dr. Jerome Schubert, my
graduate advisor and chairman of my graduate committee, for his sincere efforts,
guidance, knowledge and wealth of experience, without which this research would not
have been a success.

I would like to convey my thanks and appreciation to Dr. Hans C. Juvkam-Wold and Dr.
Steve Suh for serving as members of my graduate committee and for giving me great
ideas and inspiration.

Thanks also go to Dr. Catalin Teodoriu for providing useful materials and for his ideas
during the course of the research.

This research was initiated and supported by BP America Inc. I am grateful for their
financial support during the course of this research. Special thanks go to Louis Romo
and other BP employees for their great support.

I would also like to thank the head of the department, Dr. Steve Holditch and the faculty
and staff of the Department of Petroleum Engineering at Texas A&M University for all
their support.

Finally I would like to profoundly thank all those dear to my heart, friends and well
wishers for their support, prayer and love that kept me strong and determined during this
research.
 vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................... v

TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... vi

LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................... vii

CHAPTER

I INTRODUCTION: AIR ROTARY PERCUSSIVE DRILLING

DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................ 1

II LITERATURE REVIEW..................................................................... 3

III AIR HAMMERS.................................................................................. 10

3.1 Description of Air Hammer Operation..................................... 10

3.2 Air Hammer Types and Description of Hammer Action ......... 10

IV MECHANICAL SPECIFIC ENERGY MODEL DEVELOPMENT .. 15

4.1 Derivation of the Specific Energy Model ................................ 15

4.2 Development of the Mechanical Specific Energy Model ........ 16
4.3 Cylinder Model ........................................................................ 21
4.4 Impact Energy of Air Flowing through the Bit ........................ 30

V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................... 36

5.1 Conclusions .............................................................................. 36

5.2 Recommendations .................................................................... 36

NOMENCLATURE.................................................................................................. 38

REFERENCES.......................................................................................................... 41

VITA ......................................................................................................................... 44
 vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 3.1 Air Hammers with Flat Bottom Bit................................................ 11

Figure 3.2 Schematic Cutaway of a Typical Air Hammer .............................. 13

Figure 3.3 Air Hammer Sequence Schematic.................................................. 14

Figure 4.1 Simplified Cylinder Diagram ......................................................... 22

Figure 4.2 Air Hammer Cross Section Highlighting the

Piston, Bit and Formation............................................................... 23
 1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION: AIR ROTARY PERCUSSIVE DRILLING DEVELOPMENT

Increase in the world’s energy demand, which is associated with a sharp increase in oil
and natural gas prices, has outpaced the growth in oil and natural gas production. The oil
industry response to this increase in energy demand is to increase oil and natural gas
exploration and production. Oil companies are now forced by this high energy demand
to drill in very difficult terrain.

Increase in drilling activity is seen across the oil industry, but limited rig supply calls for
efficient and faster drilling so as to be able to drill more wells with the limited rig supply
within a given period of time. The development and application of a more efficient and
lower cost drilling technology will significantly reduce drilling time and cost,
consequently, making drilling in deep, hard rock formations and older fields with
inherent depleted reservoirs more economical. Under-balanced drilling and air rotary-
percussive drilling are some of the technologies developed to overcome these
challenges.

Air was substituted for liquid as the drilling fluid on an experimental basis on several
wells in the early 1950’s1. The resultant benefits of air drilling, a type of under-balanced
drilling technology, over conventional mud drilling are, higher penetration rates, greater
footage per bit, reduction in lost circulation, reduction in formation damage and reduced
drilling costs. The need to further increase the rate of penetration during drilling led to
the idea of rotary-percussive drilling.

Percussive drilling was first developed by the Chinese four thousand (4,000) years ago

____________
This thesis follows the style and format of SPE Drilling and Completion Journal.
 2

and in its early stage entailed raising and dropping a heavy piercing tool to cut and
loosen earth material. The first well drilled by Col. E.L Drake in 1859 was drilled using
a percussion-type machine.

Over the years researchers have been able to develop upon the principles of the early
percussive drilling machine to arrive at a powerful down-the-hole hammer. Experiments
have shown that a combination of rotary air drilling and percussive drilling, referred to
as air rotary-percussive drilling, exhibited a dramatic increase in rate of penetration over
conventional rotary drilling.

Air rotary percussion drilling is used in many wells drilled in hard rock formations
where formation fluid flow is negligible, especially in wells where formation damage,
severe fluid loss, differential sticking and low penetration rates are concerns to the
drilling engineer. However, the potential and theoretical improvements in drilling
efficiency using combined percussion and air rotary drilling is sometimes difficult to
achieve because of the vulnerability of the down-hole hammer to lose its ability to drill.
The down-hole hammer accounts for 60% of the axial force used in rock destruction
during drilling and a proper understanding of the factors affecting the down-hole
hammer performance and development of a model that can give drillers an indication of
down-hole hammer efficiency is an important step in achieving constant drilling
efficiency while drilling with the air rotary-percussive drilling system.
 3

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

E&P companies have always aimed at reducing drilling cost and presently, with the high
energy demand, companies are faced with having to drill difficult wells; time is of
essence as wells need to be completed quickly so as to drill more wells in order to meet
the growing energy demand. One of the ways of reducing drilling time and cost among
others is to drill with the highest rate of penetration attainable in a safe and efficient
manner. To attain the highest rate of penetration (ROP), drilling engineers need to know
the amount of energy required to destroy a unit volume of the various rock formation
types encountered during the drilling process and a way of monitoring the energy being
delivered to the rock by the drill bit.

Teale2 proposed the concept of specific energy (SE) in rock drilling in 1965. He derived
the specific energy equation by calculating the torsional and axial work performed by the
bit and dividing this by the volume of rock drilled. Teale1 then conducted lab tests that
demonstrated the energy per volume of rock destroyed to be relatively constant,
regardless of changes in ROP, weight on bit (WOB) or revolutions per minute (RPM).
Teale noticed that laboratory drilling data showed the SE value to be numerically equal
to rock compressive strength in pounds per square inch (psi), he however recognized that
the SE cannot be represented by a single, accurate number due to the heterogeneity of
the rock formations and the wide fluctuations of the drilling variables.

This specific energy concept is useful from an operations standpoint because it provides
a reference point for efficiency. If the observed SE is close to the known confined rock
strength, the bit is efficient. If not, energy is being lost. The value should change as the
lithology changes.
 4

Teale’s specific energy concept which has evolved into ‘Technical limit Specific
Energy’ and ‘Mechanical Specific Energy’ (MSE), has been used for determining the
drilling efficiency for drill bit designs and in specialized field applications.

Pessier and Fear3 gave a practical discussion of MSE and derived an equation for ROP
based on the specific energy equation derived by R. Teale. They made modifications to
Teale’s specific energy model by substituting an equation they derived, that expresses
torque as a function of WOB, bit diameter and a bit-specific coefficient of sliding
friction. They further showed, by conducting tests, that under atmospheric drilling
conditions the MSE is approximately equal to the unconfined compressive strength of
the formation drilled and that when drilling under hydrostatic pressure the mechanical
efficiency which is essentially the inverse of specific energy, dropped significantly.
Their analysis of field data revealed a good correlation between their simulator model
and field results. Bit selection exercise and the diagnosis of failures and drilling practices
became more accurate and less ambiguous because of the use of mechanical efficiency,
specific energy input, and a bit-specific coefficient of sliding friction as key indexes of
drilling performance.

Waughman et al.4, in their research, developed a concept that entailed real-time

monitoring of specific energy data in combination with measurement while drilling
(MWD) data and sonic data, that enhanced the decision process of when to pull the bit
out of hole. They outlined a guide on applying the specific energy monitoring technique
to the field. The initial stage in the application of the specific energy concept is to
benchmark new bit specific energy in different formations then using these values to
assess the bits dull state. The concept has been proven to work in synthetic based mud
systems and water based mud treated with anti-balling chemicals.
 5

Apart from the above two papers numerous publications exist that apply the specific
energy concept as a basis for bit performance and selection; however Curry et al.5
applies specific energy as an index to facilitate drilling performance evaluation.

Curry et al.5 developed a method to represent the difficulty of drilling a particular

formation in its down-hole pressure environment using the concept of Mechanical
Specific Energy. An algorithm was developed to estimate the technical limit specific
energy, from wire-line sonic, lithology and pressure data. They stated that, the technical
limit specific energy represents the lowest specific energy that can be reasonably
expected for a particular combination of rock properties and pressures. ‘The average
technical limit specific energy for a hole interval or well provides a rational basis for
comparing drilling performance for wells drilled in different drilling environments.’5

Dupriest and Koederitz6 adopted Teal’s specific energy equation in present drilling units
and arrived at a model for Mechanical Specific Energy that was used in a drilling
information system for mud drilling and has been implemented successfully on different
rigs. Dupriest and Koederitz showed the usefulness of MSE through practical field
application. They also showed that bit hydraulics, though not incorporated in the MSE
equation, had a noticeable effect on MSE and ROP.

The models in the above literature have applied the MSE concept to water or oil based
muds, air as a drilling fluid has not been mentioned yet.

Air was substituted for liquid as a drilling fluid on an experimental basis on several wells
in the early 1950’s in order to further improve drilling rate. A further improvement in the
drilling rate was achieved by the introduction of the air-operated, rotary percussion
drilling tool.
 6

Howard et al.7 successfully developed an air-operated percussion tool for down-the-hole

air drilling operations. In 1959, when their paper was first written, down-the-hole air-
operated, rotary-percussion quarry drilling tools drilled with chisel bits, but they had
little success when used with conventional roller cone bits because the percussive impact
was beyond the strength of the bits. They gave a detailed description of the new hammer
tool, which was basically a modification of the already existing air-operated quarry
drilling tool. The modifications were in the tools valves spacing, hammer weight and
stroke length. These were adjusted to decrease hammer impact but at a higher cyclic
frequency which permitted the tool to be used with roller cone bits. Bit footages
observed in laboratory shallow well tests showed an overall advantage of rotary
percussion over air drilling of 1.3 times, whereas field tests showed an advantage of
about 4 times.

Another pneumatic down-hole percussion tool that had just been developed then in 1965
was described by Bates7. Conditions affecting the tool’s operation were also described.
One obvious factor affecting the tools operation was the pressure across the tool as the
percussive energy was directly proportional to the differential pressure across the tool.
Bates also used a simple linear equation to calculate the kinetic energy of the percussive
tool. Kinetic Energy per blow, ft − lb = p × A × S . Where p is the pressure drop across the
hammer in pounds per square inch (psi), A is the piston area in square inches and S is the
length of the piston stroke in feet (ft).

Whiteley and England8 discussed the engineering design and operation of the flat-bottom
percussion bit/hammer tool (FPB/HT) in air drilling operation. The hammer tool they
discussed is valveless and the piston functions as a sliding valve to control the operating
air cycle. They gave a detailed description of its operation and mentioned that the impact
energy from the hammer tool is largely responsible for penetration, the weight on bit
(WOB) applied during drilling with the FPB/HT is for optimum operation of the hammer
tool. Excess WOB will prevent efficient operation of the hammer tool. Applications and
 7

limitations of the tool were stated as well as guidelines for optimization of the tool’s
performance.

As the years went by more air-operated percussive tools were developed and improved
upon to give greater drilling rate and researchers constantly showed the advantages of
the air hammer tool over conventional mud drilling.

Finger9 did a study of mining and oilfield hammers and showed that industrial hammers
could drill more than twice as fast as extremely high WOB rotary air and that the ROP
with industrial hammers was three to six times as fast as with oilfield hammers. Finger
identified sensitivity to WOB and gauge wear as two potential problems with the
application of the industrial/mining hammer in the oilfield.

Pratt10 elucidated on the above potential problem with ROP in his paper where he talked
about the modifications made to equipment and computer hydraulics programs that
enabled Shell Canada to drill more efficiently. Pratt indicated that one of the major
factors affecting ROP was bit gauge wear. When a bit goes slightly under gauge, the
driver sub causes noticeable torque and hangs up sufficiently to reduce ROP. The
problem was however solved by redesigning the bit. Pratt compared ROP’s in wells
drilled by Shell in Canada with water/mud, air rotary and air hammer between 1979 and
1983 and showed that ROP increased with air over mud drilling with a further increase
in ROP when the air hammer was used.

Pang et al11 developed a complete model of a pneumatic jack hammer system. The
application of their model required that two preliminary experiments be performed. The
first experiment produced an empirical relationship between piston impact velocity and
the pressures acting on the top and bottom surfaces of the piston. After obtaining the
value for the impact velocity of the hammer, the impact energy would then be
calculated. While from the second experiment they were able to determine the force-
 8

indentation behavior of the bit/target system. The overall model analysis led to the
prediction of the jack hammer efficiency and target response, including target
penetration and crack propagation.

Han et al12, in an effort to improve understanding of drilling physics and the prediction
of hammer performance, developed a 3D numerical simulator for air hammer drilling.
One of the outputs of the simulator is a bit advancement plot (ROP plot). This helps in
the estimation of ROP for different hammer energy and formation properties. Han et al
had already, in 2005, developed an integrated simulation tool, which included a tool
model, a rock mechanics model and a cuttings transport model. Han et al12 in their
present effort addressed the rock mechanics involved after compressive stresses pass
from bit to rock. The 3D simulator requires rock property input and hammer tool specific
inputs as stated in their work.

Various air hammers have been designed, developed and put into operation. Designers
use different methods and equations to obtain their performance indicators such as
impact energy, power, impact frequency and efficiency to mention a few. The industry
requires a simple general equation to calculate performance indicators. Chiang and
Stamm13 proposed a design methodology for down-the-hole pneumatic hammers by
developing a generic non-linear dynamic model used to compute hammer performance.
The dynamic model consists of a set of differential equations and non-linear polynomial
equations the solution of which would give hammer performance indicators such as,
impact energy, power, efficiency and mass flow rate.

Chiang and Izquierdo14 adopted the down-the-hole pneumatic hammer dynamic model
developed by Chiang and Stamm13 in their research effort that resulted in the
development of a methodology to estimate the instantaneous specific rock energy using
corrected down-the-hole (DTH) drill monitoring data. Consequently, they were able to
generate a specific rock energy profile for every hole drilled and thus mapping an entire
 9

drilling site for this index. They stated the development procedure for a special data
acquisition system used to measure and register operational variables that are inputs for
two simulation models that estimate the power absorbed by the rock through impact and
then the specific rock energy index. Correlations were found between the specific rock
energy and impact frequency, as well as between the penetration rate and applied torque
and between the penetration rate and impact frequency.

The majority of the literatures mentioned in this chapter have shown the application of
the concept of Mechanical Specific Energy to bit performance and selection as well as to
drilling performance evaluation in water and oil based mud systems, but little has been
done in arriving at a direct model for MSE in air hammer drilling systems and this
obviously requires more research work.

This research effort has been geared towards providing a model for calculating MSE for
air hammer drilling systems, an important tool in evaluating drilling performance.
 10

CHAPTER III

AIR HAMMERS

3.1 Description of Air Hammer Operation

The use of air as an energy carrier and drilling fluid in down-hole air hammer drilling
has been known for many years. Also well known is the fact that down-hole air hammer
drilling is by far the fastest method of penetration in hard rock material.

Generally, during drilling with down-hole air hammers, the tool is placed in front of the
borehole right behind the bit, while energy is transferred through the drill string in the
form of compressed air, mechanical torque and mechanical axial force. The main
function of the air hammer is to convert energy from the compressed air into piston
kinetic energy which, through the oscillating movement of the piston and eventual
mechanical impact with the bit, is transferred to the bit and then to the rock. Rock
fragmentation occurs at highly pressurized contact zones between the bit buttons and the
rock. Bit rotation, which is required during down-hole air hammer drilling, will create
new impact positions for the bit buttons and new rock will be fragmented and
consequently, advancing the bit. Crushed rock is flushed to the outside of the drill string
from under the bit through the borehole annulus to the surface by compressed air
flowing through the bit nozzles. Fig. 3.1 shows air hammers with flat bottom hammer
bit.

3.2 Air Hammer Types and Description of Hammer Action

There are a variety of down-hole air hammer manufacturers with different proprietary air
hammer designs, however there are two basic designs for the down-hole air hammers
based on the flow path of the compressed air through the hammer. One design utilizes a
flow path of the compressed air through a control rod (or feed tube) down the center of
the hammer piston (or through passages in the piston) and then through the hammer bit,
 11

while the other design utilizes a flow path through a housing annulus passage (around
the piston) and then through the hammer bit.

Fig. 3.1 Air Hammers with Flat Bottom Bit20

Fig. 3.2 shows a diagram of a typical control rod flow design down-hole air hammer.
The hammer action of the piston on the top of the drill bit shank provides an impact
force that is transmitted down the shank to the bit studs which in turn crush the rock at
the rock face.

In shallow boreholes where there is little annulus back pressure, the piston impacts the
top of the bit shank at a rate of from about 600 to 1,700 blows per minute (depending on
volumetric flow rate of air). However, in deep boreholes where the annulus back
pressure is usually high, impact rates can be as low as 100 to 300 blows per minute15.

When the air hammer is suspended from a drill string lifted off the bottom (the shoulder
of the bit is not in contact with the shoulder of the driver sub) as shown in Fig. 3.2 and in
the first schematic in Fig. 3.3, the compressed air flows through the pin connection at the
top of the hammer to the bit without actuating the piston action. When the hammer is
placed on the bottom of the borehole and weight placed on the hammer, the bit shank
will be pushed up inside the hammer housing until the bit shoulder is in contact with the
shoulder of the driver sub. This action aligns one of the piston ports with one of the
control rod windows. This allows the compressed air to flow to the space below the
 12

piston which in turn forces the piston upward in the hammer housing. During this
upward stroke of the piston, no air passes through the bit shank to the rock face. In
essence, rock cuttings transport is momentarily suspended during this upward stroke of
the piston. For example, at a piston impact rate of 600 blows per minute the air through
the bit is suspended for about 0.05 seconds per cycle. This is so short a time that the air
flow rate through the bit into the annulus can be assumed as a continuous flow15.

When the piston reaches the top of its stroke, another one of the piston ports aligns with
one of the control rod windows and supplies compressed air to the open space above the
top of the piston. This air flow forces the piston downward until it impacts the top of the
bit shank. At the same time the air flows to the space above the piston, the foot valve at
the bottom of the control rod opens and air inside the drill string is exhausted through the
control rod, bit shank and the bit nozzles to the rock face. This compressed air exhaust
carries the rock cuttings created by the drill bit for transport up the annulus to the
surface. The impact force on the bit allows the rotary action of the drill bit to be very
effective in destroying rock at the rock face and this in turn allows the air hammer to
drill with low WOB.

Down-hole air hammers are lubricated by occasionally injecting oil type lubricants into
the compressed air and down the drill string during drilling operations. The lubricant
serves to lubricate the piston surfaces as it moves up and down in the hammer housing.

Down-hole air hammers are used exclusively for vertical drilling operations as the short,
rapid blows of the piston minimizes the effect of dipping and formation damage. There
is however, on going research efforts to develop down-hole hammers for directional
drilling.

Down-hole air hammers are available in various sizes with associated suitability for
drilling different borehole sizes. The available down-hole air hammer sizes are 3 inches
 13

to 16 inches. The 3 inch diameter hammer can drill a borehole as small as 3 5/8 inches
and the 16 inch diameter hammer can drill boreholes from 17 ½ inches to 33 inches.

Fig. 3.2 Schematic Cutaway of a Typical Air Hammer15

 14

Fig. 3.3 Air Hammer Sequence Schematic19

 15

CHAPTER IV

MECHANICAL SPECIFIC ENERGY MODEL DEVELOPMENT

4.1 Derivation of the Specific Energy Model

‘Specific Energy’ is the work done per unit volume drilled. Mechanical Specific Energy
(MSE) is a ratio that quantifies the relationship between input energy and ROP. This
ratio should be constant for a given rock, which is to say that a given volume of rock
requires a given amount of energy to destroy the rock. R. Teale2, in his paper “The
Concept of Specific Energy in Rock Drilling” published in 1965 in the International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science, derived the Specific energy equation by
calculating the torsional and axial work performed by the bit and dividing this by the
volume of rock drilled. Teale then conducted laboratory tests that demonstrated the
energy per volume of rock destroyed to be relatively constant, regardless of changes in
ROP, WOB or RPM.

The equation is derived below:

The work done in one minute by the bit, during rock destruction and exaction, is the sum
of the axial work done by the WOB and the torsional work done due to rotation of the
bit. If ROP is in inch per minute and torque in inch pounds (in-lbs), then the axial work
done in one minute to excavate one inch of rock is WOB × ROP and the torsional work
done is 2πNT , where N is the bit rotation in rev/min and T is torque. Therefore the
total work done = WOB × ROP + 2πNT …………………………………………….. (4.1)

Now the Specific Energy is work done per unit volume. Let the circular area of the bit
involved in the drilling be “A”, then the volume of rock excavated in one minute is
(
A × ROP in 3 / min )
WOB × ROP 2πNT WOB 2πNT
Specific Energy = + = + …………………... (4.2)
A × ROP A × ROP A A × ROP
 16

Teale noticed that laboratory drilling data showed the MSE value to be numerically
equal to rock compressive strength in pound per square inch (psi). This is useful from an
operations standpoint because it provides a reference point for efficiency. If the observed
MSE is close to the known confined rock strength, the bit is efficient. If not, energy is
being lost. The value should change as the lithology changes. However, field experience
has shown that the energy losses that occur when the bit founders (The point at which
the ROP stops responding linearly with increasing WOB is referred to as the “flounder”
or “founder” point) are usually so large that they cannot be confused with the small
changes that occur with rock compressive strength.

In the drilling environment ROP is expressed in ft/hr and torque in ft-lb. F. E Dupriest
and W. L Koederitz in their paper SPE/IADC 92194 adopted Teal’s equation in present
drilling units and arrived at

WOB 120πNT 4 × WOB 480 × T × N

MSE = + = + ………………………...……. (4.3)
A A × ROP Dia 2 × π Dia 2 × ROP

πDia 2
Where, A = , ROP in ft/hr and Torque in ft-lb.
4

Dupriest and Koederitz6 showed the usefulness of MSE through practical field
application, they also showed that Bit Hydraulics, though not incorporated in the MSE
equation, had a noticeable effect on MSE and ROP.

4.2 Development of Mechanical Specific Energy Model

The pneumatic-hammer utilizes an internal piston (or hammer) that is actuated by the
compressed air (or other gas) flow inside the drill string. The internal piston moves up
and down in a chamber under the action of air pressure applied either below or above the
piston through points in the inside of the air hammer. In the downward stroke, the
 17

hammer strikes the bottom of the upper end of the drill bit shaft (via a coupling shaft)
and imparts an impact load to the drill bit. The drill bit in turn transfers this impact load
to the rock face of the bit. This impact load creates a crushing action on the rock face.

The rock destruction and excavation process is basically the same for air drilling as it is
for mud drilling. However in the case of down-the-hole air hammer drilling the energy
for rock destruction is supplied by three sources: impact (from air hammer), axial
downward drill string force (WOB) and rotation (torque). Hydraulics though important
has been shown (below) to have little contribution to the energy required for rock
destruction. However, hydraulic energy is considered for efficient hole cleaning and
because of its effect on MSE and ROP.

Using the earlier procedure for the derivation of the equation for Specific Energy which
is the work done per unit volume, or which can also be defined as the energy required to
destroy and excavate a unit volume of rock, we can express MSE as

E hammer E axial −thrust ETorque

MSE = + + ………………………………………..…….. (4.4)
Vunit −vol Vunit −Vol Vunit −Vol

Where
Ehammer = Hammer impact Energy
Eaxial-thrust = Axial Energy by virtue of applying WOB
ETorque = Rotational Energy

Let the circular area of the bit involved in the drilling be “A” in inches and ROP in inch
per minute, torque in inch-lb and hammer impact energy in inch-lb, then the volume of
(
rock excavated in one minute is A × ROP in 3 / min )
 18

E hammer WOB × ROP 2πNT

MSE = + +
A × ROP A × ROP A × ROP
…………………………………… (4.5)
E hammer WOB 2πNT
= + +
A × ROP A A × ROP

Eq. 4.5 can be expressed in oilfield measurement units

60 ⋅ 12 ⋅ E hammer WOB 120πNT

MSE = + + ………………………………..……… (4.6)
12 × A × ROP A A × ROP
240 ⋅ E hammer 4 × WOB 480 × T × N
MSE = + + ……………………………… (4.7)
Dia × π × ROP Dia 2 × π Dia 2 × ROP
2

πDia 2
Where A = , ROP in ft/hr, torque in ft-lb and Ehammer in ft-lb. This is consistent
4
with oilfield measurement units.

It has been experimentally shown by Chiang and Izquierdo14 that about 60% of the
energy required for rock destruction in Down-The-Hole (DTH) percussive drilling
comes from the pneumatic hammer. Therefore adequate knowledge of the DTH
pneumatic hammer is required. The hammer piston delivers certain impact energy every
time it strikes the bit shank and looking at the hammer as a pneumatic engine, then the
total impact energy delivered in one minute can be approximated as the power delivered
by this engine in one minute.

E hammer ≅ Powhammer = Powraw ⋅ η transmission ………………………………………….... (4.8)

From the above the Powraw is the raw power delivered by the pneumatic hammer engine
in one minute which is the piston impact energy times the impact frequency. The
magnitude of Powraw depends on the thermodynamic behavior of the hammer, and that is
 19

how efficiently the high pressure air energy is converted into kinetic energy of the piston
at impact. Kinetic energy from the piston is transferred upon impact on the bit shank by
way of stress wave that propagates toward the bit and then to the rock. Depending on the
geometry of the hammer components and the mechanical properties of the rock, a
percentage of the stress wave energy is absorbed by the rock, causing its failure, and the
remaining is reflected back and dissipated by the hammer and supporting structures. The
magnitude of the energy transmission efficiency,η transmission , takes the inefficiency in the
transfer of the piston kinetic energy into account.

The contribution of the impact power of the hammer on the rock destruction can be
modeled by a thermodynamic model. The impact power developed by a DTH hammer
originates from air supplied at high pressure. The balance of pressures in the front and
rear chambers in a DTH hammer causes alternate up and down motion of the piston. At
the end of the forward stroke, the moving piston impacts a drill bit, initiating a stress
wave that travels towards the rock.

To simulate the thermodynamic operation of the DTH hammer, a model developed by

Chiang and Stamm13 in their paper titled “Design Optimization of Valveless DTH
Pneumatic Hammers by a Weighted Pseudo-Gradient Search Method” (1998) Journal of
Mechanical Design, will be used. The model relates air pressure, piston velocity and
impact frequency for a given DTH hammer geometry. The impact restitution coefficient
e between the piston and drill bit takes rock behavior into account.
Chiang et al. defined the coefficient of restitution e as

piston ' rebound ' velocity v pB

e= = ……………………………………………….... (4.9)
piston impact factor v pA

Where vpB is the piston reflected velocity and vpA is the piston impact velocity. Chiang et
al’s thermodynamic model has been experimentally validated for a number of DTH
 20

hammers in an experimental bench test. More so, laboratory and field measurements
reveal that the predominant variable in the operation of any DTH hammer is the input air
pressure.

From the above explanations, considering the fact that the raw power (maximum
available power) of a DTH hammer is obtained as the product between the piston kinetic
energy difference (Impact and the rebound, represented by e2) and the percussion
frequency, it is possible to compute the raw power as:

Powraw =
1
2
( )
m pistonVIm2 pact 1 − e 2 F ……………………………………………….… (4.10)

Where mpiston is the mass of the piston, Vimpact is the impact velocity of the piston and F is
the impact frequency (blows per minute). Substituting Eq. 4.10 into Eq. 4.8

E hammer ≅ Powhammer = Powraw ⋅η transmission =

1
2
( )
m piston ⋅ VIm2 pact 1 − e 2 ⋅ F ⋅ η transmission … (4.11)

Substituting Eq. 4.11 into Eq. 4.7, the MSE model becomes:

MSE =
( )
120 ⋅ m piston ⋅ VIm2 pact 1 − e 2 ⋅ F ⋅ η transmission
+
4 × WOB 480 × T × N
+ ……… (4.12)
Dia × π × ROP
2
Dia 2 × π Dia 2 × ROP

For the calculation of the impact velocity, we will be considering the downward
movement of the piston and the velocity just before impact should be the maximum
velocity of the piston. At this point the position of the piston will be at the maximum
downward stroke of the piston which means the rear chamber behind this piston would
be occupied by high pressure air and the air in the front chamber would have been
exhausted. During actual operation of the DTH pneumatic hammer, at the same instant
 21

the air flows to the space behind the piston (Rear Chamber), the foot valve at bottom
opens and air is exhausted from the front chamber.

Fig. 3.2 in chapter III shows the air hammer suspended from a drill string lifted off-
bottom. In this position, compressed air flows through the pin connection at the top of
the hammer to the bit without the piston action. When the hammer is placed on the
bottom of the hole, and weight is placed on the hammer, the bit shank will be pushed up
inside the hammer housing until the bit shoulder is in contact with shoulder of the driver
sub. This action aligns one of the piston ports (of one of the flow passages through the
piston) with one of the control rod windows. This allows the compressed air to flow to
the space below the piston which in turn forces the piston upward in the hammer
housing. During this upward stroke of the piston, no air passes through the bit shank to
the rock face. In essence, rock cuttings transport is suspended during this upward stroke
of the piston17.

When the piston reaches the top of its stroke, another one of the piston ports aligns with
one of the control rod windows and supplies compressed air to the open space above the
piston. This air flow forces the piston downward until it impacts the top of the bit shank.
This impact force on the bit allows the rotary action of the drill bit to be very effective in
destroying rock at the rock face. This in turn allows the air hammer to drill with low
WOB.

4.3 Cylinder Model

The hammer housing where the conversion of air flow and pressure into the kinetic
energy of the piston can be considered as a cylinder as shown in Fig. 4.1. Fig. 4.1 shows
a simplified diagram of the downward stroke of the piston of the pneumatic Hammer
used to derive the thermodynamic model for the Hammer. Fig. 4.2 is another simplified
diagram of the air hammer highlighting the piston, bit and formation, with the piston
moving downward to impact the bit.
 22

The flow of air through the pneumatic cylinder is considered to be isothermal and
adiabatic, while the flow through the cylinder’s inlet and outlet valves is considered
isentropic in this research, therefore a definition of these flow processes is worth
mentioning at this point.

An isothermal process is one in which there is no change in temperature, while an

adiabatic process is one in which no heat is added to or taken away from the flow
system. An isentropic process is a frictionless adiabatic process.

RC Inlet
S0

S1

S2
Rear Chamber

Piston
Vimpact
Front Chamber
S3

Bit

FC outlet
S4

Fig. 4.1 Simplified Cylinder Diagram

 23

Pin up Connection

Back Flow Valve

Control Rod

Piston

Drive Sub

Bit
Formation

Fig. 4.2 Air Hammer Cross Section Highlighting the Piston, Bit and Formation

Below are conditions associated with the above flow processes.

For an isothermal flow – pv = constant
For adiabatic flow - pv k = constant, k is defined in the equation below
cp
k= …………………………………………………………………………. (4.13)
cv
Where, k is the ratio of the specific heats. The terms cp and cv are the specific heat at
constant pressure and constant volume, respectively.
 24

There are four main variables to calculate in the simulation of pneumatic cylinders: air
mass Wg, piston velocity vpA, air temperature (which will be bottom hole temperature),
and pressure P at the cylinder inlet and outlet, which is effectively the pressure drop
across the cylinder (or hammer in this case). The four equations necessary to know these
variables are respectively: the equation of continuity, the equation of motion, the energy
equation and the state equation of ideal gases. It is assumed that: (i) the gas (which is air
in this case) is perfect, (ii) the pressures and temperature within each cylinder chamber is
homogeneous and, (iii) kinetic and potential energy terms are negligible.

The Ideal gas equation of state is:

pv
= mR ………………………………………………………………..…………. (4.14)
T
Where p is the absolute pressure of the gas, v is the volume of the gas, T is the absolute
temperature of the gas, and m is mass of the gas and R is the ideal gas constant.

From the equation of continuity, the air mass changes at the rear chamber and front
chamber are, respectively,
dWiRC
= w& iRC ………………………………………………………………..……. (4.15)
dt
dWiFC
= − w& iFC …………………………………………………………...……….. (4.16)
dt

Using Newton’s second law of motion, the equation of motion for the piston, assuming a
negligible effect of friction, is

dv p
Force, F p = m p = ARP PRC − AFP PFC + m p g …………………………..……... (4.17)
dt

If the piston has a uniform rear and front chamber area, then we have
 25

dv p
Force, F p = m p = A p ( PRC − PFC ) + m p g = ∆PA p + m p g ...………………..….. (4.18)
dt

This is the resultant force on the piston. This force upon traveling the length of piston
stroke, S, will have an approximate energy equivalent to the product of the force times
the piston stroke. However, a more accurate model for the energy of the piston will be to
use the energy equation from the first law of thermodynamics. The first law of
thermodynamics is most easily stated for a material volume as: the rate of change of
stored energy equals the sum of rate of work done and rate of heat addition to a material
volume.

For the pneumatic cylinder in Fig. 4.1 and from the first law of thermodynamics and
assuming no heat loss occurs in the cylinder, since we have considered the process to be
adiabatic (i.e., the heat loss is small relative to the work and enthalpy terms), the energy
equation in it basic form can be written as:

U& = H& − W& ……………………………………...………………………………… (4.19)

Where U is the internal of the air in the cylinder chambers, H is the enthalpy added to
the cylinder chambers and W is the work done by the cylinder chambers.

Using the simplified cylinder diagram in Fig. 4.1 and the considering the cylinder piston
to be in the downward motion right before impact with the bit, the various terms in Eq.
4.19 can be expressed as:

dU
U& = = c p w& 2 RC T2 RC + c p w2 RC T&2 RC ……………………………………………… (4.20)
dt
dH
H& = = c p w& 1RC T1RC − c p w& 3 FC T3 FC …………………………………………...…. (4.21)
dt
 26

dW
W& = = P2 RCV&2 RC = P2 RC ARP v p ………………………………………………… (4.22)
dt

It is assumed in the derivation of Eq. 4.21 that the enthalpy term associated with the time
rate of change of temperature is small relative to that associated with the mass flow rate.
Substituting Eqs. 4.20, 4.21 and 4.22 into Eq. 4.19 and simplifying, yields,

dT2 RC 1 P2 RC ARP v p
= T&2 RC = (− w& 2 RC T2 RC + w& 1RC T1RC − w& 3 FC T3 FC ) − …….…… (4.23)
dt w2 RC w2 RC c p

Also from the pneumatic cylinder design, when air flows into the rear chamber of the
cylinder, air also exits the front chamber of the cylinder as the piston moves,

w& 2 RC = w& 1RC − w& 3 FC ………………………………………...……………………... (4.24)

4.3.1 Rear Chamber Equations

V2 RC = Vmrear + ARP x p ………………………………………..……………………. (4.25)

V2 RC
v 2 RC = ………………………………………………….…………………… (4.26)
w2 RC

RT2 RC
P2 RC = …………………………………………….……………………….. (4.27)
v 2 RC

C RC = P2 RC v 2nRC …………………………………………………………………… (4.28)

The critical pressure at the inlet section is given by

n /( n −1)
⎛ 2 ⎞
P1∗RC = P0 RC ⎜ ⎟ ………………………………………………………...… (4.29)
⎝ n + 1⎠
 27

The actual pressure at the inlet throat Pd1 is now computed. If, P2 RC < P1*RC

then, Pd 1 = P1*RC otherwise Pd 1 = P2 RC . Thus the mass flow rate,

1/ 2
⎡ 2c P (1− n ) / n
⎛⎛ P ⎞
2/n
⎛ P ⎞ ⎞⎤
w& 1RC = C m1RC Ad 1RC ×⎢
p 0 RC ⎜ ⎜ d1 ⎟⎟ − ⎜⎜ d 1 ⎟⎟ ⎟⎥ …………………… (4.30)
⎢ Rv0 RC ⎜ ⎜⎝ P0 RC ⎠ ⎝ P0 RC ⎠ ⎟⎥
⎣ ⎝ ⎠⎦

The critical pressure at the outlet section

n /( n −1)
⎛ 2 ⎞
P3∗FC = P2 FC ⎜ ⎟ ……………………………………………………….… (4.31)
⎝ n +1⎠

The actual pressure at the outlet throat Pd3 is now calculated. If, P4 FC < P3*FC

then Pd 3 = P3*FC , otherwise Pd 3 = P4 FC . Thus the mass flow rate,

1/ 2
⎡ 2c P (1− n ) / n
⎛⎛ P ⎞
2/n
⎛ P ⎞ ⎞⎤
w& 3 FC = C m 3 RC Ad 3 FC ×⎢
p 2 FC ⎜⎜ d3 ⎟⎟ − ⎜⎜ d 3 ⎟⎟ ⎟⎥ ………………...… (4.32)
⎢ Rv ⎜ ⎜⎝ P2 FC ⎠ ⎝ P2 FC ⎠ ⎟⎥
⎣ 2 FC
⎝ ⎠⎦

4.3.2 Front Chamber Equations

V2 FC = Vmfront + AFP x p …………………………………………………….………. (4.33)

V2 FC
v 2 FC = ………………………….………………………………...…………. (4.34)
w2 FC

RT2 FC
P2 FC = ……………………………………………………………..………. (4.35)
v 2 FC

C FC = P2 FC v 2nFC ……………………………………………………………..…..… (4.36)

 28

4.3.3 Energy Transmission Efficiency

A DTH pneumatic hammer converts pneumatic energy into piston kinetic energy. This
kinetic energy in then transferred to the drill bit through an impact at every blow cycle.
A stress wave is thus generated at the impact section that propagates toward the drill bit
and piston end. The portion of the stress wave that travels toward the bit-end eventually
reaches into the rock. Most of the incident stress wave gets absorbed by the rock
resulting in its breakage, while some of it gets reflected back to the drill bit, piston and
hammer cylinder. The piston receives the resulting reflected wave and acquires a return
velocity. Simulations carried out by Chiang and Stamm13, show that the piston and the
bit can stay in contact and separate alternatively several times before interaction is
completely over. On the other hand the drill string receives a portion of the reflected
waves by virtue of the hammer cylinder which is holding the bit in contact with the
bottom of the hole while exerting a thrust force over the drill bit.

Energy transmission efficiency is a very important issue in pneumatic hammer design.

From a performance stand point, it affects the rate of penetration no matter how good the
conversion of pressure energy to piston kinetic energy is, inside the hammer. The
hammer cycle is also affected because the return velocity is determined by the amount of
reflected energy after impact, which in turn has an effect over both the piston stroke
length and cycle duration. Estimation of the energy transferred to the bit and then the
rock during DTH percussive drilling is a very complex process. However, Chiang and
Stamm13 established a simplification based on earlier works on the subject by Lundberg
(1982). Hence a detailed analysis of the stress wave propagation is carried out for the
piston-bit interaction and an empirical factor is used for the actual energy absorbed by
the rock. This empirical factor depends on the rock tenacity and drill bit shape, and must
be obtained by field tests.

From the above explanation, one can analytically deduce relations, if A and B are used
to denote immediately before and after impact.
 29

From linear conservation of momentum

m p v pA = m p v pB + mb vbB …………………………………..………………. (4.37)

From the energy conservation

1 1 1
m p v 2pA = m p v 2pB + mb vbB
2
………………………………..…………… (4.38)
2 2 2
Thus
(m b − mp )
v pB = − v pA ………………………………………………..…… (4.39)
(m b + mp )

And
(2m ) p
vbB = v pA ……………………………………………………….. (4.40)
(m b + mp )

The energy absorbed by the rock is the kinetic energy transmitted to the bit upon impact
by the piston
1
ER = 2
mb vbB ……………………………………………...…..….. (4.41)
2
The energy reflected through the piston is
1
EP = mb v 2pB ………………………………………………...…… (4.42)
2
Note that the coefficient of restitution e is defined as e = v pB / v pA . The energy

transmission efficiency was derived by Li et al16 and will be briefly described here,

Where α = 2(mb / m p )β and β = Kτ / (ρcAp )

When α > 1, β ≥ 0.5πα / (α − 1)

0.5
 30

η = 2⋅
(1 + e −π / α −1
)
2

…………………………………...………... (4.43)
β

When α > 1, β < 0.5πα / (α − 1)

0.5

2 ⎛ ⎛ β⎞ ⎛ β ⎞ ⎞ ⎛ − 4 (β / α ) ⎛ β⎞ ⎞
1 + e − 4 (β / α ) + ⋅ ⎜⎜ sin ⎜ 2 ⋅ α − 1 ⋅ ⎟ + α − 1 ⋅ cos⎜ 2 ⋅ α − 1 ⋅ ⎟ ⎟⎟ ⋅ ⎜⎜ e ⋅ sin ⎜ 2 ⋅ α − 1 ⋅ ⎟ − α − 1 ⋅ e − 2⋅( β / α ) ⎟⎟
(α − 1) ⎝ ⎝ α⎠ ⎝ α ⎠⎠ ⎝ ⎝ α ⎠ ⎠
η = 2⋅
β

……………………………………………………………….……………………... (4.44)
Since α = 2(mb / m p )β , from the equation β = 0.5πα / (α − 1) .
0.5

The estimated K values of very hard rocks (σc = 200 MPa). Medium hard rocks (σc = 80
MPa), and soft rocks (σc = 40 MPa) are 250, 90 and 50 MN/m respectively. Other
models, one of which is that by Lundberg and Okrouhlik17, exist that could be used to
compute the energy transmission efficiency.

4.4 Impact Energy of Air Flowing through the Bit

On the first pass, the jet impact force was modeled as follows: To model the Hydraulic
impact force at the bit, it was assumed that all the fluid momentum is transferred to the
hole bottom. Since the fluid is traveling at a vertical velocity vn before striking the hole
bottom and is traveling at a zero vertical velocity after striking the hole bottom, the time
rate of change of momentum (in field units) is given by18:

Fj =
( )
∆ mv ⎛ m ⎞
≅ ⎜ ⎟∆ v =
(ρq )vn
………………………………………...……… (4.45)
∆t ⎝ ∆t ⎠ 32.17(60)

Where (ρq ) is the mass rate of the fluid through the bit, and ρ is in lb/ft3, q is in ft3/min,
vn is in ft/sec and g = 32.17 ft/sec2.

From the book, Gas Volume Requirements for Underbalanced Drilling by Boyun Guo
and Ali Ghalambor, the flow of air through the bit, qb is given by
 31

⎡ 2 k +1
⎤
q b = 6.02CAt Pai
k ⎢⎛⎜ Pbh ⎞ k ⎛P
⎟⎟ − ⎜⎜ bh
⎞
⎟⎟
k
⎥
(1 − k )S g Tbh ⎢⎜⎝ Pai ⎠ ⎝ Pai ⎠
⎥ ………………....…. (4.46)
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦

Where C is the flow coefficient, approximately 1.0 for drill bit nozzles and 0.6 for bit
orifices. At is in ft2.

From the above equation, the velocity of the flow through the bit, vn will be

⎡ 2 k +1
⎤
vn =
qb
=
6.02
CPai
k ⎢⎛⎜ Pbh ⎞ k ⎛ Pbh ⎞
⎟⎟ − ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
k
⎥ …………………..….. (4.47)
At (60) 60 (1 − k )S g Tbh ⎢⎜⎝ Pai ⎠ ⎝ Pai ⎠ ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦

In Eq. 4.45, the air density at the bit can be expressed at

Pai S g
ρ air = …………………………………………………….………………… (4.48)
Ra Tbh

Where Pai is the Pressure just above the bit in the drill string and the temperature just
above the bit is assumed to be the same as the bottom hole temperature. Ra = 53.36 ft-
lb/lb-˚R and Sg is the specific gravity of air. Substituting Eqs. 4.46, 4.47 and 4.48 into
Eq. 4.45

⎡ 2 k +1
⎤
F j = 0.000518
(6.02) ⎛⎜ Pai S g
2
⎞ 2 ⎛
⎟⎟C At Pai2 ⎜
k ⎞ ⎢⎛ Pbh
⎟ ⎜
⎞k ⎛P ⎞
⎟⎟ − ⎜⎜ bh ⎟⎟
k
⎥ ……... (4.49)
60 ⎜⎝ Ra Tbh ⎜ (1 − k )S T ⎟ ⎢⎜ P ⎥
⎠ ⎝ g bh ⎠ ⎢⎝ ai ⎠ ⎝ Pai ⎠ ⎥⎦
⎣

From Lyon’s Air and Gas Drilling Manual17, assuming a sub-sonic flow through the bit.
 32

k
⎡ ⎛ wg ⎞
2
⎤ k −1

⎢ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎥
⎢ ⎝ At ⎠ ⎥
Pai = Pbh ⎢ + 1⎥ …………………………..……………. (4.50)
⎢ 2 g ⎛⎜
k ⎞
⎟ Pbh γ bh ⎥
⎢ ⎝ k −1⎠ ⎥
⎣ ⎦

Substituting Eq. 4.50 into Eq. 4.49 and simplifying, yields

⎡ −2
⎤
⎢⎜⎛ ⎛ wg ⎞
2
⎞ k −1
⎥
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎟
⎢⎜ ⎟ ⎥
3 k ⎢⎜
⎝ At ⎠ + 1⎟ − ⎥
⎡ ⎛ wg ⎞
2
⎤ k −1 ⎢⎜ 2 g ⎛ k ⎞ P γ ⎟ ⎥
⎢ ⎜⎜ ⎟ ⎥ ⎢⎜ ⎜⎝ k − 1 ⎟⎠ bh bh ⎟ ⎥
S g C 2 At ⎛ k ⎞ 3⎢ ⎝ At ⎟⎠ ⎥ ⎢ ⎝ ⎠ ⎥
F j = 3.1288 × 10 − 4 ⎜ ⎟ Pbh + 1⎥ ⎢ ⎥
Ra Tbh ⎜⎝ (1 − k )S g Tbh ⎟⎠ ⎢ ⎛ k ⎞ ⎢
− ( k +1)
⎢ 2g⎜ ⎟ Pbh γ bh ⎥ ⎛ ⎛ wg ⎞
2
⎞ k −1 ⎥⎥
⎢ ⎝ k −1⎠ ⎥ ⎢⎜ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎟
⎣ ⎦ ⎢⎜ A ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎜ ⎝ t ⎠ + 1⎟ ⎥
⎢⎜ ⎛ k ⎞ ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎜ 2 g ⎜ k − 1 ⎟ Pbh γ bh ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎣⎝ ⎝ ⎠
⎠ ⎥⎦

⎡ 3k − 2 2 k −1
⎤
⎢⎛⎜ ⎞ k −1 ⎛ ⎞
2 2 k −1
⎛ wg ⎞ ⎟ ⎜ ⎛ w ⎞ ⎟ ⎥
⎢ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜⎜ g
⎟⎟ ⎥
S g C At ⎛
2
k ⎞ 3 ⎢⎜ ⎝ At ⎠ ⎟ ⎜ ⎝ At ⎠ ⎟
⎥
F j = 3.1288 × 10 − 4 ⎜ ⎟ Pbh ⎜ + 1⎟ −⎜ + 1⎟
Ra Tbh ⎜⎝ (1 − k )S g Tbh ⎟⎠ ⎢⎜ ⎛ k ⎞ ⎟ ⎜ ⎛ k ⎞ ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎜ 2 g ⎜ ⎟ Pbh γ bh ⎟
2g⎜
⎜ ⎝ k −1⎠ ⎟ Pbh γ bh
⎟ ⎥
⎢⎝ ⎝ k − 1 ⎠ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎥
⎣⎢ ⎦⎥

…………………………………………………………………………………..…. (4.51)

q g (scf / min )
Where the weight rate of flow of air, wg = γ g Q g and Q g = ( ft 3 / sec)
60
Pbh S g
and γ bh = .
Ra Tbh
 33

The bottom hole pressure can be calculated using the expression below

0.5
⎡ 2 2 aa H
⎤
( )
Pbh = ⎢ Pat + ba Tav e Tav − ba Tav2 ⎥
2
………………………………………....…….. (4.52)
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦

⎛ S g ⎞⎡ ⎛ w ⎞⎤
2
f ⎛ Ra ⎞ w g2
Where ba = ⎜ ⎟ and a a = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎢1 + ⎜ s ⎟⎥ , where the
2 g (Dh − D p ) ⎝ S ⎠ ⎛ π ⎞ 2 2 ⎜
⎝ Ra ⎠ ⎣⎢ ⎝ wg
⎟⎥
⎜ ⎟ Dh − D p
2
( )2 ⎠⎦
⎝4⎠
⎛π ⎞ ⎡ ROP ⎤
weight rate of flow of solid rock cutting (lb/sec), ws = ⎜ ⎟ Dh2 (62.4 )S s ⎢ , where
⎝4⎠ ⎣ 3600 ⎥⎦
ROP is in ft/hr and Ss is the specific weight of the cuttings. The empirical von karman
relationship for determining the fanning friction factor for the annulus is:
2
⎡ ⎤
⎢ ⎥
1
f =⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎛ D − Dp ⎞ ⎥
⎢ 2 log⎜⎜ h ⎟⎟ + 1.14 ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎝ e ⎠ ⎥⎦

For follow-on calculations for flow in the annulus the absolute roughness for commercial
pipe, ep= 0.00015 ft will be used for the outside surfaces of the drill pipe and drill collars,
and inside surface of the casing. The open hole surfaces of boreholes can be approximated
with an absolute roughness, eoh = 0.01 ft. The average absolute roughness of the annulus is
approximated by using a surface area weight average relationship between the open
surface area and its roughness and the outside surface of the drill string and its roughness.
Thus the value for eavo is
⎛π ⎞ ⎛π ⎞
eoh ⎜ ⎟ Dh2 H o + e p ⎜ ⎟ D p2 H o
eavo = ⎝4⎠ ⎝4⎠ , the term Ho cancels and the above reduces to
⎛π ⎞ 2 ⎛π ⎞ 2
⎜ ⎟ Dh H o + ⎜ ⎟ D p H o
⎝4⎠ ⎝4⎠
 34

⎛π ⎞ ⎛π ⎞
eoh ⎜ ⎟ Dh2 + e p ⎜ ⎟ D p2
4 ⎝4⎠
eavo = ⎝ ⎠ ……………………………………………..……...… (4.53)
⎛π ⎞ 2 ⎛π ⎞ 2
⎜ ⎟ Dh + ⎜ ⎟ D p
⎝4⎠ ⎝4⎠
Tbh = Tr + GH , where G is the temperature gradient and is usually 0.01 ˚F/ft and

Tr = (t r + 459.67 )° R , where tr is the approximate average temperature at the surface

location in ˚F.

The flowing assumptions were made while arriving at the model for flow through the bit
nozzle:
1. That the flow is isentropic.
2. Elevation changes are ignored
3. The bottom hole temperature is the same as that just above the bit.

The equation for the jet impact force was tried out with example 8.3b, in Lyon’s book (Air
and Gas Drilling Manual). In the example Pbh = 29,454 lb/ft2, Tbh = 604.41˚R,
atmospheric pressure, pat = 12.685 psia, Pat = pat x 144 = 1,827 lb/ft2,
Pat S 1827 × 1
γg = = = 0.0659lb / ft 3
Ra T 53.36 × 516.67

Pbh S 29454 × 1 q g (scf / min ) 2400

γ bh = = = 0.913lb / ft 3 , Q g = = = 40( ft 3 / sec)
Ra Tbh 53.36 × 604.41 60 60

wg = γ g Q g = 0.0659 × 40 = 2.632lb / sec , Pai = 31,330 lb/ft2, k = 1.4 for air,

At = 0.00802ft2
Using Eq. 4.49 above for simplicity
⎡ 2 k +1
⎤
Fj = 0.000518
(6.02)2 ⎛⎜ Pai S g ⎞⎟C 2 A P 2 ⎛⎜ k ⎞ ⎢⎛ Pbh
⎟ ⎜
⎞ k ⎛ Pbh
⎟⎟ − ⎜⎜
⎞
⎟⎟
k
⎥
⎜R T ⎟ ⎟ ⎢⎜ P
⎝ (1 − k )S g Tbh
ai ⎜
60
t
⎝ Pai ⎥
⎝ a bh ⎠ ⎠ ⎢⎝ ai ⎠ ⎠
⎣ ⎦⎥
 35

⎡ 2 1.4 +1
⎤
⎛ 31330 × 1 ⎞ 2⎛ 1.4 ⎞ ⎢⎛ 29454 ⎞ 1.4 ⎛ 29454 ⎞ 1.4 ⎥
−4
F j = 3.1288 × 10 ⎜ ⎟ 0 .00802(31330 ) ⎜ ⎟
⎜ (1.1.4)1 × 604.41 ⎟ ⎢⎜ 31330 ⎟ − ⎜ ⎟
⎝ 53.36 × 604.41 ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ 31330 ⎠ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
F j = 0.02lb

The force is almost negligible and this is not surprising because of the polytropic
expansion of the air as it exits the bit nozzle.

In designing the air volume requirement for Air drilling, we use the minimum kinetic
energy (3.0 ft-lb/ft3) required at the bit to lift the cuttings, with this value we do not expect
a lot of impact force. However, as argued earlier, we have to take the kinetic energy at the
bit into account as it affects the cutting removal from the bit which in turn affects the ROP
and MSE.
 36

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusions
From the theoretical study of the air hammer and the derivation of the Mechanical Specific
Energy model, the following conclusions were made:
1. A model for calculating Mechanical Specific Energy for air hammer drilling system
has been developed as derived in Eq. 4.12.
2. The pneumatic impact force, as shown in Chapter IV, of air exiting the bit does not
contribute to the total rock destruction impact force from the bit. Air however, is very
important for operating the hammer and for the removal of cuttings from under the bit.
Inadequate cuttings removal will, however, affect rate of penetration and Mechanical
Specific Energy values.
3. The differential pressure across the hammer is an important input for calculating
hammer impact energy and can be used to control the hammer impact energy and
consequently the rate of penetration during drilling.
4. Mechanical Specific Energy values, when properly applied can be utilized as a
qualitative indicator of formation pressure changes during drilling. For as formation
pore pressure changes, Mechanical Specific Energy values will change as well.

5.2 Recommendations
1. Field Data is required for further validation of the Mechanical Specific Energy model
for air hammer drilling systems.
2. In spite of the results from this research, we should consider the fact that experience in
the use of Mechanical Specific Energy in air hammer drilling is very limited.
Therefore, a proper field experimentation, application and possible modification (if
necessary) of the model developed in this research is required.
 37

3. A possible further research area will be to investigate the effects of pneumatics,

cuttings build-up and friction on the Mechanical Specific Energy values during air
hammer drilling.
 38

NOMENCLATURE

WOB Weight on Bit, lb

ROP Rate of penetration, ft/hr
N Bit revolutions per minute, rpm
T Torque, ft-lb
Dia Bit diameter, in
A Circular area of the bit, in2
vn Fluid vertical velocity, ft/sec
m Fluid mass, lb
ρ Density of fluid, lb-sec2/ft4
q Flow rate of fluid, ft3/sec
cd Nozzle discharge coefficient (0.95 is recommended value)
Pb Bottom-hole pressure, lb/ft2
Fj Jet impact force, lb
⎛ π ⎞
At Total nozzle area ⎜⎜ ∑ Dn2 ⎟⎟ where ∑ Dn2 = D12 + D22 + .......Dn2
⎝ 4(32 )
2
⎠
v pB
e Coefficient of restitution, e =
v pA

vp, vpA,Vimpact Piston impact velocity, ft/sec

vpB Piston reflected velocity, ft/sec
Powraw Hammer raw power, ft-lb/min
mpiston, mp Piston mass, lb
mb Drill bit mass, lb
F Impact frequency, blows/min
ηtransmission Energy transmission efficiency
wiFC,wiRC Mass of air at point i of front chamber or rear chamber, lb
w& iFc , w& iRC Air mass flow at point i of front chamber or rear chamber, lb/sec
 39

Fp Resultant force of piston, lb

Ap Area of piston, ft2
TiFc , TiRC Air temperature of point i of front chamber (FC) or rear chamber
(RC), º R
PiFC , PiRC Air Pressure of point i of front chamber or rear chamber, lb/ft2
∗ ∗
PiFC , PiRC Critical air Pressure of point i of front chamber (FC) or rear
chamber (RC), lb/ft2
cp Specific heat at constant pressure
k Adiabatic expansion exponent
n Polytropic expansion exponent
Pd1, Pd3 Discharge pressure at points 1&3, lb/ft2
ARP , AFP Piston rear area (RP) and front area (FP), ft2
xp Piston position, ft
C m1FC , C m3 FC Front chamber input discharge loss coefficient (m1FC), output
Discharge loss coefficient (m3FC)
C m1RC , C m3 RC Rear chamber input discharge loss coefficient (m1RC), output
Discharge loss coefficient (m3RC)
ViFC ,ViRC Air specific volume at point i of front chamber (FC) or rear chamber
(RC), ft3
Vmfront Passive volume front chamber, ft3
Vmrear Passive volume rear chamber, ft3
viFC , viRC Air specific volume at point i of the front chamber (FC) and rear
chamber (RC), ft3
R Air constant for Ideal gas, ft-lb/lb-º R
C RC , C FC Polytropic expansion constant
Ad1RC Rear chamber input discharge area (d1RC), ft2
Ad3FC Front chamber output discharge area (d3FC), ft2
 40

For energy transmission efficiency model (units as in reference #16)

ρ Density of steel
c One dimensional wave velocity
A Cross-sectional area of the anvil, and/or piston
K Rock impact resistance index
τ Duration of impact

For the impact energy of the air flowing through the bit
qb Air flow through the bit, ft3/sec
Pai Pressure just above the bit in the drill string, lb/ft2
Pbh Bottom-hole pressure, lb/ft2
Tbh Bottom-hole temperature, º R
k 1.4 for air
Sg Specific gravity of air
Ss Specific weight of cuttings
At Total nozzle area, ft
Tav Average temperature of the hole. º R
G Temperature gradient, º F/ft
Dh Hole diameter, ft
Dp Drill pipe outer diameter, ft
wg Weight rate of flow of air, lb/sec
ep Absolute roughness of commercial pipe, ft
f Fanning friction factor
H Hole depth, ft
Ra Gas constant, ft-lb/lb-º R
C Nozzle discharge coefficient
 41

REFERENCES

1. Howard, G.C., Vincent, R.P. and Wilder, L.B.: “Development and Field Use of a
High-Frequency Gas-Operated Rotary-Percussion Drilling Tool,” Journal of
Petroleum Technology (May 1960) 20-26.

2. Teale, R.: “The Concept of Specific Energy in Rock Drilling,” International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Science (1965) vol. 2, 711-725.

3. Pessier, R.C. and Fear, M.J.: “Quantifying Common Drilling Problems With
Mechanical Specific Energy and a Bit-Specific Coefficient of Sliding Friction,”
paper SPE 24584 presented at the 1992 SPE 67th Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Washington, DC, 4-7 October.

4. Waughman, R.J., Kenner, J.V. and Moore, R.A.: “Real-Time Specific Energy
Monitoring Reveals Drilling Inefficiency and Enhances the Understanding of When
to Pull Worn PDC Bits,” paper IADC/SPE 74520 presented at the 2002 IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference, Dallas, Texas, 26-28 February.

5. Curry, D., Fear, M., Govzitch, A. and Aghazada, L.: “ Technical Limit Specific
Energy-An Index to Facilitate Drilling Performance Evaluation,” paper SPE/IADC
92318 presented at the 2005 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, 23-25 February.

6. Dupriest, F. E. and Koederitz, W. L.: “Maximizing Drill Rate with Real-Time

Surveillance of Mechanical Specific Energy,” paper SPE/IADC 92194 presented at the
2005 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 23-25 February.
 42

7. Bates, R.E.: “Field Results of Percussion Air Drilling,” paper SPE 886 presented at the
1964 SPE 39TH Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, Texas, 11-14 October.

8. Whiteley, M.C., and England, W.P.: “Air Drilling Operations Improved by Percussion
Bit/Hammer Tool Tandem,” paper SPE/IADC 13429 presented at the 1985 SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, 6-8 March.

9. Finger, J.T.: “Investigation of Percussion Drills for Geothermal Application,” Journal

of Petroleum Technology (December 1984) 2128-2136.

10. Pratt, C.A.: “Modifications To and Experience With Air-Percussion Drilling,” SPE
Drilling Engineering Journal (December 1989) 315-320.

11. Pang, S.S. and Goldsmith, W.: “A Model of a Pneumatic Jackhammer System,” Rock
Mechanics and Rock Engineering (1992) 25, 49-61.

12. Han, G., Bruno, M.S. and Dusseault, M.B.: “3D Simulation of Rock Breakage With
Air Hammer in Gas-Well Drilling,” paper SPE 99522 presented at the 2006 SPE Gas
Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, 15-17 May.

13. Chiang, L. and Stamm, E.: “Design Optimization of Valveless DTH Pneumatic
Hammers by a Weighted Pseudo-Gradient Search Method,” Journal of Mechanical
Design (December 1998) 120, 687-694.

14. Izquierdo, L.E. and Chiang, L.E.: “A Methodology for Estimation of Specific Rock
Energy Index Using Corrected Down-The-Hole Drill Monitoring Data,” Mining
Technology: Transaction of the Institute of Mining & Metallurgy (December 2004)
113, A225-A236.
 43

15. Lyons, W.C., Guo, B. and Seidel, F.A.: Air and Gas Drilling Manual, McGraw-Hill
(2001).

16. Li, X., Rupert, G., Summers, D.A., Santi, P. and Liu, D.: “Analysis of Impact Hammer
Rebound to Estimate Rock Drillability,” Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering
(2000) 33, 1-13.

17. Lundberg, B. and Okrouhlik, M.: “Efficiency of a Percussive Rock Drilling Process
with Consideration of Wave Energy Radiation into the Rock,” International Journal of
Impact Engineering (2006) 32, 1573-1583.

18. Bourgoyne, A.T., Millheim, K.K., Chenevert, M.E. and Young, F.S.: Applied Drilling
Engineering, SPE Text Book Series, Volume 2 (2005).

19. “Air Hammers Cut Barnett Shale Drilling Time in Half,” September 2004,
http://www.worldoil.com/magazine, downloaded, 7 November 2007.

20. Tuomas, G.: “Water Powered Percussive Rock Drilling,” Dissertation, Lulea
University of Technology, Lulea, Sweden (2004).
 44

VITA

Name: Boma Jeremiah Okuchaba

Address: Harold Vance Department of Petroleum Engineering

Texas A&M University
3116 TAMU-507 Richardson Building
College Station, Texas 77843-3116

Email Address: bomi_o@yahoo.com

Education: B.Tech., Electrical Engineering, River State University of Science

and Technology, River State, Nigeria, 1997
M.S., Petroleum Engineering, Texas A&M University, 2008